Research, Writing, and Instruction by Geoffrey B. Elliott

Month: April 2016

After treating questions from earlier classes, discussion asked after final impressions of the SOQ, the FV of which was to have been submitted before class began. Discussion also asked after progress on compiling notes for the FinEx.

The survey announced earlier in the week has closed. Results will post when they become available.

Students are reminded of their exam dates and times. Each section will meet in Morrill Hall, Room 106, at its designated time:

Students were reminded about a survey asking after student data and impressions, as well; it can be found here: http://goo.gl/forms/8RezCGxMMy. Students are asked to submit proof of completion before the end of office hours on Friday, 29 April 2016 (i.e., 1400 on that date); successful submission will earn students an A+ quiz grade.

FinEx, in Morrill Hall Room 106 at the date and time noted by section below:

Section 015: 2 May 2016, 1000-1150

Section 023: 4 May 2016, 1000-1150

Section 040: 4 May 2016, 0800-0950

Regarding meetings and attendance:

Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 16 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. All attended, verified through a coursework use form. Student participation was good, if somewhat distracted, as usual.

Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 14 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. All attended, verified through a coursework use form. Student participation was reasonably good.

Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 12 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. All attended, verified through a coursework use form. Student participation was adequate.

Following a shift occasioned by medical concerns, class devoted itself largely to review of the prefatory and summative statements for the FinPort; students had been asked to bring copies of their work on them to class during the previous class meeting.

Students were reminded about a survey asking after student data and impressions, as well; it can be found here: http://goo.gl/forms/8RezCGxMMy. Students are asked to submit proof of completion before the end of office hours on Friday, 29 April 2016 (i.e., 1400 on that date); successful submission will earn students an A+ quiz grade.

Students are further reminded of the following due dates:

FinPort (due via email before noon on 29 April 2016; this is a change from posted calendars)

The section met as scheduled, at 1300 in North Classroom Building Room 311. The roster listed seven students enrolled, unchanged since the previous class meeting. All attended, verified by a coursework use form. Student participation was reasonably good.

Due to family medical concerns, I will not be able to be in the classroom today, 25 April 2016. It is not as I would have it, but it is as it must be.

Students at Oklahoma State University are strongly encouraged to conduct an additional peer review session (apply the rubric) during their assigned class time, or else to call on the Writing Center for additional outside review. As noted in an email, the SOQ remains due as scheduled.

Students at Northern Oklahoma College are encouraged to review FinPort materials. As noted in an email, further review (that had been scheduled for today) will be postponed to Wednesday. The FinPort is now due via email before noon on Friday, 29 April 2016.

Students in all sections are advised that a survey is available for completion: http://goo.gl/forms/e3nTLmxMeq. Those who submit proof of completion before the end of my scheduled office hours on Friday, 9 April 2016 (so, 2pm), will get an A+ quiz grade.

After addressing questions from the previous class meeting and before, discussion turned to the SOQ, of which the Update was to have been submitted before class time. The FinEx also received attention.

After addressing questions from previous classes, discussion asked after student impressions of the ResPpr, the FV of which was to have been submitted before the beginning of class time. The FinPort and FinEx also received attention.

Students are reminded that afternoon office hours on Friday, 22 April 2016, will largely be taken up by a meeting with Oklahoma State University faculty.

Students are asked to bring printed copies of the prefatory statement, table of contents, and summative statement for their FinPort on Monday, 25 April 2016, so that they may be reviewed in advance of the FinPort being due.

Students are further reminded of the following due dates:

FinPort (due online before class begins on 27 April 2016)

FinEx (in the regular classroom at 1400 on 2 May 2016)

The section met as scheduled, at 1300 in North Classroom Building Room 311. The roster listed seven students enrolled, unchanged since the previous class meeting. Six attended, verified informally. Student participation was reasonably good.

After addressing questions from the previous class meeting and before, discussion inquired into student progress on the SOQ, of which the Update is due via D2L before class begins on Friday. It also publicized information about the FinEx.

Students are reminded that afternoon office hours on Friday, 22 April 2016, are likely to be wholly occupied by another meeting.

From time to time, students, colleagues, and friends ask me to write them references for one thing or another. In all cases, I find it flattering to be asked, even if I cannot necessarily provide a helpful reference for the person asking (and there have been times I have not felt I could be of service to those who have asked me for recommendation); I consider the request to be a validation of my insight and judgment, and I flatter myself in both regards. A question about my willingness to do so came up in a recent class, and it occurred to me that I had not updated my reference policy towards my students since its appearance some time ago on my older teaching website. Making such an update seems to be in order; a revised statement of my policy on such matters regarding my students appears below. (I treat my colleagues and friends differently, as should be expected.) It still borrows from the stated policies of my long-time adviser, Prof. Chris Healy at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

I am happy to write recommendations for those students who have done well in my classes, both in terms of their academic performance and of their professionalism. This generally means that students need to have earned a solid B or better (85+) , or an HPR for those students in college-preparatory classes at Technical Career Institutes who may still ask me for letters, in courses taken with me and to have been pleasantly memorable presences in the classroom and during office hours for me to be willing to write recommendations for them.

To write the recommendation, I will need to know whom I will write the recommendation to, as well as what medium the recommendation needs to take (an online form, a printed letter, an Interfolio letter, or some other format). Further, I will need a copy of relevant materials, such as writing samples that the recommendation will accompany; a CV/resume from the requester and a sample of the work done thereby will also be appreciated.

Give me some time to work on the piece. A couple of weeks before I need to send off the recommendation (allowing time for mailing, if that is how it needs to go) will be enough; a couple of days will not likely be. The request for the recommendation should itself be a point in favor of the recommendation, and consideration for the writer conduces to that end.

In asking me to write a letter of recommendation, students are giving me permission to discuss specifics of their performance in my class/es with those to whom I am writing the recommendation. I can hardly do well at the task without providing details, after all.

There may be more to come in this regard; policies need to be ready to change to suit new circumstances that arise.

Discussion in all sections was truncated in favor of permitting time for the student survey of instruction. Before adjourning to that purpose, though, it was able to inquire after questions from the previous class meeting, as well as to address ongoing concerns of the SOQ.

The section met as scheduled, at 1300 in North Classroom Building Room 311. The roster listed seven students enrolled, unchanged since the previous class meeting. All attended, verified informally. Student participation was reasonably good.